Simpler and Better - Housing Design in Everyone's Interest

8/9/2019 Simpler and Better - Housing Design in Everyone's Interest

1/23

Simpler and betterHousing design in everyones interest


2/23

Contents

1

Introduction

Richard Simmons

1 What is the problem?

Homes as a retail product

The question of subjectivity

The overriding importanceof other considerations

Can we affordbetter design quality?

The real market is in money,not housing

Policy and market failures

2 What can be done?

The case for a minimumdesign standard

Empowering local authoritiesand local communities

A golden equity sharefor the local community

3 Conclusions

4 Background: our reading of thehousing market

2

3

4

6

9

10

12

14

18

22

26

28

34

38

Published in 2010 by the Commission

for Architecture and the Built Environment.

Graphic design: Fivebargate

Printed by Centreprint UK Ltd

on Revive recycled paper.

All rights reserved. No part of this

publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, copied or transmitted

without the prior written consent of the

publisher except that the material may bephotocopied for non-commercial purposes

without permission from the publisher.

CABE is the governments advisor on

architecture, urban design and public

space. As a public body, we encourage

policymakers to create places that work

for people. We help local planners apply

national design policy and offer expert

advice to developers and architects.

We show public sector clients how to

commission buildings that meet the needs

of their users. And we seek to inspire the

public to demand more from their buildings

and spaces. Advising, influencing and

inspiring, we work to create well-designed,

welcoming places.

CABE

1 Kemble Street London WC2B 4AN

T 020 7070 6700 F 020 7070 6777

E [email protected] www.cabe.org.uk

This publication is available

in alternative formats on request

from the publisher.

CABE is supported by


3/23

Introduction

In No more toxic assets1 in 2009 I asked i we coulduse the breathing space oered by the recession tond new ways to improve housing design quality. Thenin Who should build our homes?2 six leading thinkersproposed new models or housing delivery.

They then joined workshops with other experts to refecton the proposals. CABE is extremely grateul to all the

participants - housebuilders, policy makers, architects,planners, academics, valuers and economists. Theysuggested practical actions and sensible policychanges which could transorm housing design quality.The challenge is tough, but not intractable.

In Simpler and better, I have distilled CABEsconclusions about the most important ideas whichhave emerged. Simpler reers to a new, streamlinedstandards ramework that were proposing, alongsidethe introduction o a minimum design standard or allnew homes in Britain (better). The industry should geta clear, consistent set o standards, and the consumerand the community get a guarantee o homes that aregood enough everywhere.

The maxims o the day are doing more with less anddoing things dierently, not simply doing less. Not todumb down approaches to design quality, but toensure that those things that really matter are realised.

Richard Simmons

In November 2008 President Obamas chie-o-starevisited economist Paul Romers advice on crises.Willing outmoded US industries to restructure inresponse to the recession, Rahm Emanuel saidYou dont ever want a crisis to go to waste - its anopportunity to do important things that you wouldotherwise avoid.

The same maxim inspired No more toxic assets.The housebuilding industry was in shock rom thecredit crunch. Was this the opportunity to shapea brighter uture or housing delivery and designquality? Could we change the unchangeable?To do so, did we have to think the unthinkable?

Getting better design or new homes and theneighbourhoods in which they sit has been oneo the more intractable challenges aced bygovernment in recent years. During the workshopswhich helped generate this report, it was agreedthat the design challenge is dicult or severalreasons. Partly its a result o the culture andeconomics o housing provision in the UK. Partlyits because o the particular ways in which town

planning and the structure and nancing o theindustry work.

CABEs statutory purpose is to improve thedesign quality o buildings and places. We knowthat design quality matters. We have the evidencethat there is a need or improvement. We believethat there could be xes. But we need to startby addressing six main points o contention thatunderpin the debate about housing design.

Introduction 1 What is the problem?

2 3

1 Simmons, R. (2009)

No more toxic assets,

London: CABE, cabeurl.

com/bx

2 Whitehead, C.,

Studdert, P., Peace,

L., Hill, S., Desai, P. &

Robinson, D. (2009)

Who should build our

homes?London: CABE,

cabeurl.com/by
http://www.cabeurl.com/bxhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bxhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bxhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bxhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bxhttp://www.cabeurl.com/byhttp://www.cabeurl.com/byhttp://www.cabeurl.com/byhttp://www.cabeurl.com/byhttp://www.cabeurl.com/byhttp://www.cabeurl.com/byhttp://www.cabeurl.com/byhttp://www.cabeurl.com/byhttp://www.cabeurl.com/byhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bx


4/23

to problems with the design o neighbourhoods andstreets, and access to public transport and communityacilities. What we might call the building blocks oour communities. The very things, in act, that aredemanded and paid or by the burden o regulation,policy and taxation.

It is also true, though, that when we have asked

purchasers about the homes they have bought, theyhave been less complimentary than housebuildersreport. They note that poor quality workmanshipand design especially in terms o the layouto the development negatively impact on theirexperience o their new home and neighbourhood.4

Poor space standards also impact on residentseveryday lives, with 57 per cent reporting that theydont have sucient storage space; 48 per centreporting too little space to ever entertain visitors;and 48 per cent eeling they cant get away romother peoples noisy activities.5

Some o the conusion in the evidence may result romwhat behavioural economists call the endowmenteect. When we own something, we value it

much more highly. This will apply especially to aninvestment as big as a new home. O course customersatisaction surveys should be taken seriously, andthe latest NHBC survey results to September 2009are impressive. But they remain only one dimensiono an assessment o quality, because this is not just aprivate matter between buyers and builders. There isa public interest to be served by improving the designquality o homes and neighbourhoods.

4 5


Homes as a retail product

First, some housebuilders argue that their rms arejust retailers o housing units. Additional obligations,going beyond those to their immediate customers,are a burden o regulation, policy and taxation. Thisburden can include the design requirements andother demands o the planning system; planning gain

(through section 106 or planning agreements); andregulation such as the code or sustainable homes.Meanwhile, housebuilders survey new occupants,whom they say are happy with their housing units, andsome conclude this means there is no evidence o aproblem with housing design quality.3

Housebuilders do ace a complex and sometimesconusing regulatory ramework. Homes are not,though, a normal retail product. Unlike iPods orkettles, homes cannot be shipped around. Theyare rooted in places, in highly localised markets.De facto, housebuilders build neighbourhoods andcommunities. O course the immediate customersor homes are important. We are all, however,consumers o the housebuilders products. This isnt

really an arguable point. We all share the carbonimpact o new building. We all have to look at it. Weall give up the common amenity o green eld sitesso that individuals and amilies can have new homes.We all benet when derelict sites are brought intouse. All tax payers pay or maintenance o new roadsonce the builders adoption payment has run out.Nobody at CABE has ever suggested that all thenew products o the housebuilding industry are badlydesigned. In act, our housing audits point mainly

4 CABE (2005)

What its like to live

there: the views of

residents on the design

of new housing, cabeurl.

com/bz

5 CABE (2009) Space

in new homes - What

residents think, cabeurl.

com/c0

3 Stewart, J. in BBC

(2009) Homes rejected

for social housing,

cabeurl.com/bk

Homes are not

a normal retail

product. They

are rooted in

neighbourhoods

and communities,

so we are all their

consumers

O course

customer

satisaction

should be taken

seriously, but

it is only one

dimension o

an assessment

o quality
http://www.cabeurl.com/bzhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bzhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bzhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bzhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bzhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bzhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bzhttp://www.cabeurl.com/c0http://www.cabeurl.com/c0http://www.cabeurl.com/c0http://www.cabeurl.com/c0http://www.cabeurl.com/c0http://www.cabeurl.com/c0http://www.cabeurl.com/bkhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bkhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bkhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bkhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bkhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bkhttp://www.cabeurl.com/c0http://www.cabeurl.com/bzhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bk


5/23


6/23

8 9


determinant o design quality. CABE has alwaysargued that customers should have choice; but choicerom a palette suited to the locality, not rom a range ostyles which are built everywhere and belong nowhere.

The overriding importance o other considerations

Third, an argument which comes up requently

in discussions about design quality is that otherconsiderations have to take precedence whendecisions are made. This argument is made rom timeto time by politicians, planners, planning inspectorsand government ocials, using a well-worn pieceo planning legalese. They say that other materialconsiderations enable them to grant planningpermission or poor design. The same argument hasbeen used during the recession to justiy publiclyunding projects which should not even have receivedplanning permission, never mind public money.

Whilst, oten, there are other important considerations,the principle that design quality is not a relativeconcept is now well established in policy. In the caseo the Building Schools or the Future programme,

or example, the entire scoring system or selectingPFI/PPP partners was changed on CABEs advice,with the ull support o ministers and Partnershipsor Schools, to create an absolute bar below whichdesign quality is not allowed to all, no matter what therelative merits o other considerations.

All new homes

are built in a

place with

character, and

new housing

should suit

that locality

criteria or good design, based on evidence andcenturies o learning about good practice:n Will the design last and be sustainable?n Does it do its job well?n Is it pleasing to the eye?

These criteria orm the basis or any reliable judgement

about design quality. Using tools like Building orLie, the joint CABE/Home Builders Federationnational standard or well designed homes andneighbourhoods, they can be applied consistently andconsensually to sort good design rom bad.

Just as importantly, all new homes are built in a place.That place already has character, determined by itsheritage and local conditions. Most people respectand enjoy character and heritage. That alone showsthat any one individuals taste should not be the only

Regency View, Tividale,

West Midlands scored

33% in a CABE

housing audit. Common

design issues or new

neighbourhoods include

inactive street rontages

and a lack o distinctive

character.


7/23

1110

Can we aord better design quality?

Fourth, some builders and economists argue that wecant aord better design quality. The argument goesthat high land prices and the production and othercosts o building homes preclude spending moneyon design quality. At the height o the housing boom,CABE was told that the cost o land and the expense

o planning agreements were squeezing investmentin design quality out o the system.

Housebuilders have, as a matter o act, becomevery good at minimising production costs. Much othe ocus is thereore on the cost o land and theexpectations o landowners. For example, buildershave told CABE that they are orced to constructsmaller homes at higher densities in order to getenough on the site to satisy landowners nancialappetites. This seems curious when land valuesshould, in theory, always be the residual remainingater all other costs have been accounted or and thesale price o the new homes has been calculated.

CABE has commissioned the redesign o a number

o recent housing estate layouts judged to be poorunder Building or Lie. We ound that you can greatly and very quickly improve designs without, orexample, compromising on the use o standard housetypes. In some cases it has even been possible tot more homes on sites in better congurations.This suggests that sites can become better qualityplaces without signicant additional cost, deliveringmore product, more eciently and/or more protably,through the application o good design.


Builders say they

are orced to

construct smaller

homes at higher

densities to satisy

landowners

nancial appetites

IanCanham/Alamy

Abito is a Building

Design Partnership

scheme or 256

modular apartments in

Manchester. It has been

recognised as a careul

and interesting response

to the brie - but are

micro fats like these

really sustainable?


8/23

12 13

The real market is in money, not housing

Fith, it is argued that design quality is not near thetop o the agenda because customers main worrieswhen buying a new home are where it is located,whether they can get a mortgage and what capitalgrowth they can hope or by the time that they sell. Inother words, in buyers minds the amenity value o a

good quality home has become subordinated to themonetary value o a nancial investment.

There are not enough homes to meet demand:the planning system has not met its objective toensure that enough new homes can be built, whilethe industry has not built at the rates necessary tomeet housing need, nor even to cater or eective


6 Savills (November 2009)

Spotlight on strategic

development sites,

cabeurl.com/bt

Generous credit

in a restricted

market is no

incentive to invest

in design quality

demand. This ailure has happened in spite o therebeing a large number o homes which have planningpermission but which have not been built: the Savillsdatabase o strategic development sites accounts orover one million residential units, o which between100,000 and 150,000 units with planning permissionwere on-hold as o autumn 2009. These weremainly within the private sector and located in the

East and South East o England.6

What is at issue is the extent to which peoplemay have to trade design quality in their home orneighbourhood or a chance to get on the housingladder; and the extent to which everyone has becomeaddicted to the big, tax-ree capital gains whicharise or home owners in a market with restrictedsupplies o product. The extension o credit acilitieswithout a marked increase in supply was likely toprovide a serious disincentive to investing in designquality. Essentially, i you could build it, you couldsell it, as one housebuilder put it to CABE in anotherconversation. Good design didnt aect the bottomline suciently positively to make a dierence tosales or proceeds, so there was no reason or the

builder to spend money on it.
http://www.cabeurl.com/bthttp://www.cabeurl.com/bthttp://www.cabeurl.com/bthttp://www.cabeurl.com/bthttp://www.cabeurl.com/bthttp://www.cabeurl.com/bt


9/23

14 15

Policy and market ailures

Finally, there was a consensus at our workshops thatcommon policies and practices inadvertently conspireto push design quality down the agenda. It gets lost asan unintended consequence o otherwise well-meaninginitiatives; a lack o skills; cumbersome and bureaucraticdevelopment management in local authority planning

departments; and the competitive practices, nancing,procurement and production methods o the industry.

Used well, the English planning system can producewonderul places. It can protect what we love mostabout town and country. It should be the means to buildbeautiul, desirable new communities. But whilst it hasthis potential, it hasnt been used well enough in manyplaces to deliver either the volume or design quality onew homes we need. It is claimed that many plannerslack the skills to negotiate or better quality design; orthat they dont have the time to do so because theyhave to manage a large number o box ticking exercises.Certainly, rates o production and the design qualityo much housing output suggest that the kind o pro-active planning that most planners want to do is being

blocked somewhere along the line. Some plannerswould not agree with this analysis but it seems to bewhat many housebuilders believe they are experiencing.

A counterpoint to this view is that there are plenty oplanning permissions out there but that the complexityo the planning system reinorces the domination othe industry by a small number o volume builders,which acts as a disincentive to new market entrantswho might bring innovation and increased output.


Because the market is driven by short-term capital-growth investment, a low-trust trader model ohousebuilding has emerged. The consequenceis that housebuilding companies (or, perhapsmore airly, those who invest in them) have cometo depend on a nancial model which seeks verysubstantial returns on capital employed rather than,say, a steady but more modest revenue stream.

This can lead to sites with planning permission lyingundeveloped as capital is employed elsewhereor better returns. Shareholders have traditionallyperceived high risks in investing in housingbusinesses, so they look or higher rates o returnthan they might rom other types o business. It hasbeen argued that housebuilders need a careullycontrolled pipeline o land and sales to keep returnsto capital high enough to satisy shareholders.Some go urther and claim that housebuilders takeadvantage o low levels o production to keep returnson capital high. This in turn reinorces their ability tosell anything, regardless o design quality.

Not all these things are true o all housebuilders all

the time, o course. It is true, though, that even in theboom years, production levels were low and pricesrose rapidly. This suggests that the power o a ewkey players to control supply and prices cant be ruledout as an issue. And none o this is to say that theindustry always builds bad products. On the contrary,one o its unexplained mysteries is that all the largestrms can and do build excellent, aordable, welldesigned housing; yet all but a couple o them alsoregularly build poorly designed schemes.

Used well, the

English planning

system can

produce wonderul

places. But it oten

hasnt been used

well enough to

deliver volume or

design quality

The largest rms

can and do build

well-designed

housing, yet all

but a couple also

regularly produce

poorly designed

schemes


10/23

One reasonable conclusion to be drawn rom thisdebate is that both sides o the argument have somemerit. The interaction o a planning system which isntalways as good as it can be with builders who dontachieve consistently good results increases the riskthat design quality will be an unintended casualty.This will be especially true when the need or volumeand aordability is so pressing because o the gul

between supply and demand.

16

DavidMillingtonPhotographyLtd

17

Butts Green in Warrington,

designed by John Wilson

Associates, received a

Building or Lie Silver

Standard. Its well detailed

construction and ormal

open spaces have

succeeded in creating a

strong sense o place.


11/23

18 19

Let us, or the moment, accept that there are threereally big inhibitors to improving design quality:

1. The expectations o housebuilders, landowners andpublic bodies that they will receive a very substantialdividend rom the increment in land value which usuallyarises when planning permission is granted or housing.

2. That this expectation is justied, outside a recession,because the planning system, overall, limits the supplyo land below a level which would meet demand orhousing.

3. That, on the evidence, the industry does notcurrently have the right incentives to improve designquality; nor is it subject to suciently powerul orconsistent regulation always to build well designedhomes and neighbourhoods.

How might this be changed, whilst also increasing thesupply and aordability o housing? Let us conduct athought experiment.

We seem to be dealing with complex interactions

between market ailure and policy ailure. What mighthappen i the problem were simplied by greatlyreducing the regulation o the use o land? In thisthought experiment, housing is deemed to haveplanning permission on most land, apart rom areaso the greatest conservation value, such as nationalparks, and sites too hazardous to develop due toormer uses, food risk and so on. Green belts havebeen abolished. Conversion rom non-residential useto housing is permitted without the need or planning

2 What can be done?

What would

happen i

land controls

were almost

completely

liberalised?

TimCrockerwww.timcrocker.co.uk

The conversion o Hornsey

Road Baths in London

created more than 200

mixed-tenure apartments

and a Sure Start Centre

Designed by Pollard

Thomas Edwards, it

received a Building or Lie

Gold Standard.


12/23

20 21

much better overall. This time, though, the premiumin the market should be or new homes o gooddesign, with decent room sizes, in the well laid outand serviced neighbourhoods which builders wouldneed to provide to keep up with the competition. Weshould also see new entrants to the market, no longerdeterred by the barrier o needing large amounts ocapital or credit to buy land.

Is this the solution to the problem o design quality?Its radical and risky. But economic theory says itshould raise design quality by cutting through policyailure and cutting out market ailure. CABE, however,thinks this degree o deregulation is never going tohappen, or three reasons:

1 It would be politically unacceptable to l iberalise landuse controls to this extent. We know that most peoplewould like housing developments to be o betterdesign quality; but the NIMBY vote doesnt wantdevelopment at all and it remains very vocal.

2 There are strong vested interests at work toprotect capital values and growth in the housing

market. Banks and building societies need to protectmortgage values. Financial institutions and peoplewith pension unds need to protect their investmentin housebuilders shares. Landowners (includingpublic bodies which have made assumptions aboutincome rom sales o surplus land) and everyonewho already owns a home probably eels the same.No investor would be keen to see the value o theirinvestment suddenly undermined by a market foodedwith new supply.

2 What can be done?

No investor

wants to

see value

undermined

by a market

fooded with

new supply

permission. Increasing the housing density on existingresidential land is also permitted development. Allhousing is still subject to building regulations to ensuresaety, accessibility and sustainability.

I economic theory is correct, large amounts o landshould come orward or development, because there isenormous suppressed demand or housing. Landowners

would have to sell land at more competitive prices orrisk deals going elsewhere. Consumers would havear more choice than they do at the moment. Builderswouldnt be sure that they could sell whatever they built.They should then begin to compete on design quality,rstly because they would perceive that they couldaord to do so, with land costing less and no planningagreements to pay or; and secondly because theywould need better to dierentiate their product.

Naturally there would still be some locations whichwould be more desirable than others, so prices wouldvary locally and regionally; but aordability should be

Norolk Park Green

Homes, Sheeld was

developed in consultation

with the local community.

Designed by Matthew

Lloyd Architects, it

received a Building or

Lie Silver Standard and

a BL award.


13/23

22 23

2 What can be done?

We need a clear

set o minimum

design standards

applied to all new

housing

3 Town and country planning laws exist or goodreasons. They were originally enacted to protectpublic health and get rid o slums. They wereextended to prevent ribbon development, so as toprotect agricultural land and our heritage o historictowns and the natural beauty o the countryside.They help places respond to changes in the economyand environment, such as the growth in use o the

motor car. These objectives are no less valid now.They still command popular support. They will remainimportant as we tackle uture challenges such asclimate change.

So, i this simple and radical solution does not seemto be realistic, what next?

The case or a minimum design standard

I deregulation is not the answer, then i we wantgood design we have to regulate or it. Yet theconsensus is that the current orm o regulation isntworking well enough. We need to do somethingdierent. What we need is a clear set o minimumdesign standards equitably applied to all new

housing.

In practice we already have many o the essentialcomponents o a minimum design standard (MDS).There is a number o existing standards or housingthat have developed over the last decade alongsideplanning policy and building regulations. Thesehave gone a long way to raise the ambition or thequality o new homes. But they overlap and crossreerence each other, adding to the regulatory burden

o delivery, and some vital elements are missing.Others are not applied universally. CABE has arguedbeore that this is unair on housebuilders. Under theprinciples o better regulation they should be treatedconsistently by all regulators in this case buildingcontrol, local planning and highways authorities andthe Planning Inspectorate. Housebuilders shouldexpect to ace the same standards and basic types o

policy, stated transparently and interpreted and appliedeven-handedly and clearly or local circumstances.

This emphatically does not imply uniormity o design.That would work against local distinctiveness andagainst addressing local needs also a principle obetter regulation.7

7 Hampton, P. (2005)

Reducing administrative

burdens: effective

inspection and

enforcement, London:

HM Treasury, cabeurl.

com/bq

The urban greeneldextension o Upton in

Northampton shows

how volume house

builders can create

high quality public

realm. Phase 1, Site A

was designed by Paul

Newman Homes and

EDAW

IvorSamuels
http://www.cabeurl.com/bqhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bqhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bqhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bqhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bqhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bqhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bqhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bqhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bq


14/23

24 25

2 What can be done?

There is an

opportunity to

reect on existing

standards and

consolidate and

simpliy them,

and clariy when

and how they

should apply

Some aspects o good design are easy to regulate.The building regulations are, or example, very clearabout non-variable standards o construction andbasic access or disabled people. Other aspectsare less susceptible to precise regulation o thissort. CABEs housing audits suggest that designproblems arise partly rom inconsistencies betweenregulatory regimes such as planning and highways;

partly rom the diculty which policymakersexperience in expressing and applying theirexpectations or variable aspects o design clearlyenough; and partly rom diculties in aligning policiesor local distinctiveness with some housebuilderswishes to build identical products everywhere.

Minimum design standards can work very eectivelyto deal with these problems. CABE and Partnershipsor Schools have been applying one to the BuildingSchools or the Future programme. It has led tomeasurable improvements in design quality notjust meeting the standards but exceeding them.It is able to deal well with the balance betweenstandardisation and local requirements. It helpsto resolve the dierent objectives o dierent

stakeholders. It enables design policies to beexpressed and understood, whilst encouragingaspiration, innovation and creativity.

There is an opportunity now to refect on theeectiveness o all these existing standards andconsolidate and simpliy them, remove duplicationand provide clarity about when and how they shouldapply and are enorced. This will improve quality bybeing clear about what is expected as a minimum

and apply it universally to all housing. A minimumdesign standard or housing should replace theexisting standards, not be in addition to them.

A minimum design standard or housing should:

n Use the planning system to enable the structuredbrieng, specication, negotiation and assessment

o variable elements o design, benchmarkedthrough Building or Lie. This should includeaspects such as highways layouts, public spaceand locally specied elements ocused ondistinctiveness and should be part o an aspirationalagenda. The aim must be not simply to stop designquality alling below a minimum standard butdemonstrate how to go beyond.

n Set clear standards or non-variable and non-negotiable design elements that should bedelivered alongside, or identied or uture inclusionwithin, building regulations. This would make aclear distinction between planning and buildingregulations.

The minimum design standard or schools is providingsome much-needed certainty or contractors on whatthey are expected to do about design. It doesntremove all risk. It doesnt discourage innovation andcreativity. But it does provide a suciently secureramework to mean that design risk can be managedeciently. A minimum design standard or housingshould be expected to do the same.


15/23

26 27

2 What can be done?

Public unding

and planning

should demand

the same high

standards

Building or Lie provides a sound basis or thoseaspects o a MDS which cannot and should not bestandardised. Builders who use Building or Lie likeit because it is a tool or dialogue about design, not aproscriptive set o infexible rules. Local authorities like itbecause it enables them to take considered, structured,easily deensible planning decisions about design.

CABE believes that there should also be read acrossbetween planning standards and those applied topublic unding. Housebuilders should only be regulatedthrough one combined set o standards whereverpossible. The main exception to this might be wherethere are particular local requirements, such as the useo specic materials in conservation areas. In the main,though, public unding and planning should demand thesame high standards.

There is an important role or CABE in helping to deneand support the MDS. But the main thing is or a singleapproach to standards to be applied, wherever theyare used. It is also vital to recognise that these are onlyminimum standards: good enough to justiy spendingpublic money; good enough or your neighbourhood

or mine; good enough or your children or mine to livein; good enough or your mum and dad or your ageingaunt. We should always aim to do even better than theminimum; but we should never do worse.

Empowering local authorities and local communities

Peter Studderts essay in Who should build ourhomes?makes a case or empowering local governmentto be more active in delivering new homes. This means

using the planning system better, as the positive orcewhich it can be. Its about a stronger role in procuringaordable housing. Its about local authoritiesunderstanding and taking responsibility or theirproper unction in securing design quality.

The participants in CABEs workshops agreed thatlocal authorities have an essential role because no

other stakeholder can do what they can. Like nationalgovernment they are democratically elected andaccountable, yes, but they are distinguished by beingcloser to peoples lives in their neighbourhoods and bybeing accountable local custodians o the uture.The extent to which people make decisions orthemselves is set to increase in the coming monthsand years, and both councils and organisations

Tribal

Broadclose Farm,

Bude. North CornwallDistrict Council chose

to control the design

and development

process rather than

sell to the highest

bidder. It was

designed by Trewin

Design Partnership

and derived rom a

masterplan by ECD

Architects.


16/23

2 What can be done?

like CABE will need to develop ever better ways tosupport citizens and consumers in making thosechoices, not least in the complex and long-standingdecisions around creating successul development.There are opportunities here, by truly working with thepeople who will live with those decisions, to see moresuccessul new housing that is genuinely wanted, builtwith the long-term in mind. However, there are many

very recent examples o councils granting planningpermission or schemes which are not designedwell enough. CABE has seen these both during theongoing work o design review and in round 1 o theKickstart programme.

To address this, a number o useul initiatives is alreadyunder way. These include accrediting local Building orLie assessors, the Homes and Communities Agencyssingle conversation, and CABEs local developmentramework core strategy programme. These arerunning alongside design review, sharing local designresources, and the use o design champions. Reormsto the planning system are being proposed, moreclosely to involve communities in making local plans.Policies such as Total Place and Total Capital also

have the potential to engage councils and communitiesin a creative dialogue about the uture shape o localservices and the buildings and places in which theywill take place. The question is, will all that solve it?

A golden equity share or the local community

Supposing that we truly believed that local authoritiesare the custodians o the uture o their communities?Its one o the things that the best councils have

28 29

Planning is at root

a democratic,

political leadership

activity inormed

by technical

advice, not a

technical process

in which politicians

and communitiesinterere.

8 Epsom and Ewell

Borough Council

Minutes of the Meeting

of the Planning

Committee held on 19

June 2008 [minutes],

cabeurl.com/bw

shown that they can do best, given the resources, thepowers and the reedoms. Planning is, ater all, at roota democratic, political leadership activity inormedby technical advice, not a technical process in whichpoliticians and communities interere.

Where planners and councillors show leadershipand skill, we see great placemaking. Developers

who recognise the advantages o good design havebeen at the oreront o using the best architects.Where they combine orces, the results can bespectacularly good.

But judging by CABEs mailbox and our regular directinvolvement at local level, too many planners andcouncillors still seem to eel that they are locked into abureaucratic system in which box ticking has replacedcreative engagement with development. Whats more,the planning system is adversarial to a degree whichseems to be counter-productive. Is there another wayo looking at the relationship between developers,councils, planning and design which might generatecollaborative and design-ocused outcomes?

There have, at various times since the 1970s,been national planning policies which created apresumption in avour o development. In act, the ideacan still be ound cited in relatively recent planningdecisions.8 But our second thought experiment beginsby inverting the assumption (right or wrong this is athought experiment) that landowners have the right todevelop their land more or less as they want.
http://www.cabeurl.com/bwhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bwhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bwhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bwhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bwhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bwhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bwhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bwhttp://www.cabeurl.com/bw


17/23

30 31

2 What can be done?

In practical terms this is easible because, althoughreeholds give owners extensive rights, all land isheld rom the Crown. The government can, thereore,modiy those rights, as it already does through theplanning system, property taxes and compulsorypurchase laws.

The experiment recognises that land is a resource

which is part o the common wealth. Thats not to saythat land should be nationalised. Its to register theact that its development aects the whole community,which has an automatic share in many o the benetsand costs created by development.

To give this share a degree o real expression, ourthought experiment views planning as a commercialrather than a social activity. In commercial terms, then,

it says that town and country planning legislationcreates, in eect, a golden equity share or thecommunity in all development land. Land can onlybe developed i the local authority, on behal othe community, uses its golden share to unlockdevelopment rights.

I planning were truly a commercial activity,

then when a local planning authority releaseddevelopment value, the owner o the golden equityshare would expect to receive the value o unlockingits share. Value would be recouped in a numbero ways, including through design quality. For thecommunity, o course, this would be because gooddesign is desirable aesthetically but also, moreimportantly in our commercial model, because itsaves the community costs: or instance throughbetter social interaction, and lower carbon emissions.

CABE isnt suggesting that local authorities shouldsell planning permissions, o course. The purposeo this thought experiment is to ask people to thinkdierently. It acknowledges that developmentis a communal activity in which the landowner,

the developer and the community have sharedrights and interests. Seeing the community as ashareholder in development, rather than a regulator,is a way o thinking about how to get the best out odevelopment or everyone. In this version o planning,the local authority is elected by its communities toact as their trustee in using the golden equity sharewisely, with an eye both to present conditions and touture needs.

Seeing the

community as a

shareholder in

development,

rather than a

regulator, is a new

way o thinking

Park Central (zone1)

Birmingham, designed

by Gardner Stewart

Architects to include

great new public

spaces, has benetted

rom an innovative

unding arrangement

between the local

authority, a housing

association and the

developers.


18/23

32 33

How might this way o thinking change things? Firstly,development ought to be less adversarial, because thecommunity would see itsel as an active stakeholder in itsown uture. Developers and landowners might, o course,claim that this approach does not remove the burden oregulation and taxation. This thought experiment, though,assumes its not a burden. Instead, this is recognitiono the truth about development. Communities need

developers to help them to change and improve, orinstance in response to new economic and environmentalimperatives and to changing demographics. Developersneed communities to provide context and value or theirdevelopments. What this way o thinking could do ismake development a partnership rather than a battleeld.

But surely CABE is being nave to think that anyonewould give local authorities a golden equity share indevelopment? Not really. They already have a virtualgolden share, given by the planning system. Theynegotiate with developers as stakeholders. It gives themthe right to take nancial stakes in projects throughplanning agreements. They can say no to development iit isnt good enough. The question CABE is asking, then,is not whether there should be a golden equity share or

communities. Its why all councils dont use the planningsystem as though it were one.

There are also, o course, real equity shares. Localauthorities and regeneration agencies are otenlandowners who can, i they choose, participate inprojects as nancial partners. Public bodies also givegrants. Whilst grants are not usually used to buy a sharein the equity o a project, some have been used in asimilar way at least in the sense that they have clawback

Communities

need developers

to help them

to respond

to changing

circumstances.

Developers need

communities to

provide contextand value

2 What can be done?

arrangements. These share in the upside risk andrecover some o the grant i a subsidised scheme ismore viable than anticipated when the grant was given.

There is the potential to use real equity shares, orgrants thought o in this way, as stakes to leveragedesign quality into projects, much o the bestdevelopment o the last 30 years has been achieved

through partnerships between local authorities and theprivate sector in regeneration projects, nding ways tosucceed in what amounts to a permanent recession.Maybe we can learn rom this experience now that aweakened property market is almost everywhere.

I all developers recognised that the communitys stakein development is legitimate and all councils choseto wield their golden share in the interests o gooddesign, a more harmonious planning system could ullits ambition to make places better or the peoplewho live there.

MarkEllisandAshley

Bingham,ICDPhotography

A Planning or Real

exercise gave the

communities o

Queensborough and

Rushenden a say in

regeneration on the Isle

o Sheppey.


19/23

34 35

3 Conclusions

This pamphlet does not refect all the opinions o allthe experts who contributed to the workshops. In truth,participants were oten pessimistic about the potential eitherto get the industry to raise its game on design quality, or topersuade government, its agencies and local government togive design quality equal billing with volume and speed oconstruction. The test questions will you reuse to und this ithe design isnt good enough? and will you reuse planning

permission i the design isnt good enough? have been ailedso requently in the past that some caution is not surprising.

Nevertheless, during a series o very high calibre debates,a whole range o proposals emerged in addition to thoseoutlined above. They included, or example, the idea omass customisation, where builders provide a basic shellwith core services while the purchaser buys foor spaceand species the t-out. This has been a success in lotapartments in regeneration areas and in some new housingon the continent. The drawback is that it does nothing toguarantee good neighbourhood design.

There was also a debate about the housebuilder ascontractor: in this model, they act as contractors to publicbodies or registered social landlords, building to the clients

specication rather than oering their own product.

Options to increase supply were raised. This could bedone, or example, by making the conversion o city centreoce buildings permitted development. Likewise, villageenvelopes could be extended to allow the construction oenough new housing to overcome problems such as thedecline o schools and village post oces, with the saeguardo minimum design standards and suitable provision orcommunity acilities.

Sel-build and sel-commissioning was also exploredat length. In principle this could lead to better designbecause people are acting as their own client andwill be able to choose their own designs. In practice,the workshop participants elt this route oten needsacilitation to ensure good design, and because accessto the market is currently so limited, it is not the mostdirect way to aect the quality o volume housing.

Finally, the obvious point was made that using goodarchitects and landscape architects on a projectinvariably drives up standards. A number o rms oarchitects come up repeatedly as designers o thebest schemes. They routinely produce well laid out,attractive, locally distinctive and commercially viablehousing designs. It has been suggested that weshould mandate the use o architects on projectsbut you cannot, unortunately, require the mandatoryuse o good architects. But it is perectly easible orpublicly unded projects to require the selection oarchitects by competition or through interview againsta brie requiring high-quality design. It is also possibleto use planning agreements to prevent anothercommon problem: the removal o good architects

rom a project once they have secured a planningpermission, ater which design quality is quickly lostthrough value engineering which adds no value andjust cuts corners. CABE does not accept that usinggood architects would cost much more, or lead tocostlier housing. Experience shows otherwise. Wethink developers should use good architects andlandscape architects, and councils insist on their use.

Using good

architects and

landscape

architects on a

project invariably

drives up

standards

CABE does not

accept that using

good architects

would cost much

more, or lead to

costlier housing


20/23

In summary, these debates concluded:

1 The market alone is not going to deliver gooddesign quality consistently unless the supply oland is completely deregulated. This is very unlikelyto happen, so i we want better design quality, theplanning system and public unding regimes have tomandate it and make sure that it is delivered.

2 The most equitable and ecient way to do this isto use minimum design standards which are simple,clear, universal in coverage, locally distinctive whereappropriate and enorced consistently and rigorously.They should involve benchmarking through Buildingor Lie.

3 Thinking about planning as a community goldenshare rather than an adversarial process could createa more collaborative and creative environment orgood design; but it wont deliver consistently goodquality without being supported by good, clearstandards.

4 The possibility o reormulating planning gain as

a community equity share could be considered asa way o creating a genuine partnership betweendevelopers and local communities. CABE avoursoverseeing this through local government, because itis durable and accountable.

5 Making regulation more ecient and improvingdesign skills in the planning system is pivotal i we aregoing to allow more time and talent to be devoted toimproving design quality.

36 37

3 Conclusions

Granville New Homes,

London is a Building

or Lie award winner

designed by Levitt

Bernstein Associates.

Brent Council proved

a strong public sector

client, ensuring a

showcase scheme to

set high standards or

a wider masterplan.

The council equipped

local people to produce

a design which the

community liked.

TimCrocker/LevittBernsteinAssociates


21/23

38 39

4 Background

keep their products in viable price bands. In arecession, o course, these methods dont work,so housebuilders margins get squeezed.

n A consequence o the xed location ohousing is that its value can also be very muchaected by local assets and by changes in thelocal economy and environment, regardless o how

good the home itsel may be. Examples include thepremiums which apply to the price o homes neargood schools, and the devastating eect o theloss o economic activity on housing markets in theinner suburbs o many northern towns and citiesby the 1990s.

n How housebuilders and their unders makedecisions about value will vary depending oncircumstances. Housebuilders usually decidewhether or not to proceed with a project basedon their assessment o the return which it willproduce on capital employed and their perceptiono how shareholder value will be improved. Theresidual value o land is, in simple terms, arrivedat by estimating what amount homes can be sold

or, then deducting the costs o developmentand the expected return on capital. In practice,though, landowners exert power in the market byland banking against potential uture increases inland values. Developers have told CABE that theysometimes have to increase densities and reducespace standards to achieve high enough residualland values to bring land into the market.

Much o this pamphlet is about the relationshipbetween the housing market and design quality.The participants in CABEs workshops elt that it wasimportant to set out some o the basic assumptionsabout the market which have inormed the pamphletscontent. They are:

n What the market signals to be important will

normally (some would say always) drive whathousebuilders do.

n The action o an uncontrolled market ornew homes usually taking open land andcovering it with buildings has a direct impact onthe perceived amenity o local communities. Todeal with this (and other problems) society haschosen to modiy the market by using the planningsystem to control the supply o land, and thedesign o what gets built.

n The housing market is unusual becauseo the xed location o its products and thesignicance o the second hand market. Manypeople preer older types o housing and, in any

case, existing homes make up the bulk o thetraded stock. Their exchange is bound to dominatethe market. This sets limits on the pricing o newhomes. Second hand homes sell at a rate basedmainly on supply and demand in their particularlocality, without having to actor in productioncosts or returns to shareholders. Housebuilderstraditionally deal with this problem in two ways.They charge a premium or new homes; and theyrely on the rising trend in overall house prices to


22/23

4 Background

40 41

n A particular eect o the use o planningagreements to und aordable housing hasbeen an increasing mixing o the design andproduction o housing or sale with that o socialrented housing. Where this housing is otherwiseunsubsidised, social landlords can end up withhousebuildersstandard products, whether ornot they are suited to the tenants who will live

there. Where there is additional public subsidy,and because housebuilders cant always producebespoke products, either the demands o undersaect what private sector housebuilders build orsale more generally, or unders have to accept thatthey will get standard product or their money. Thiscan aect the quality o what gets built or socialrent and what builders have to build or sale.

n The way that the planning system, landowners,nanciers, suppliers and customers interactis complex because o all o the above. Thiscomplexity can aect inormation in the market,which can in turn make it dicult to compare thequality o products.

n Market ailure can and does occur as a result o anumber o the actors above.

n Policy ailure can and does occur too, againbecause o a number o the actors above.

n Housebuilders rely on lenders valuersto value their products as mortgagable at theasking price. In some cases housebuilders haveound that aspects o good design such assustainability measures are not valued sucientlyhighly by mortgagees valuers to justiy the costo their inclusion, even where they are likely toimprove resale values or reduce running costs.

This limits the willingness or ability o builders toinclude these elements in their projects.

n Homes are a big investment. Most people cantaord one without borrowing a lot o money, orrenting rom someone who can aord to ownproperty. This means that the market isnt only, oreven principally, or homes. Its as much or moneyas or real property.

n The amount o prot which can be maderom housing development in a strong markethas led governments to seek recompense orthe external costs arising or the public sectoras a consequence o development. It has donethis by taxing developments directly (but oten

unpredictably in terms o amount) throughplanning agreements. It has been argued that thisplaces priority on issues other than design quality,not least because planning agreements havebecome a major source o income to und localprogrammes such as providing aordable homesand school building.


23/23

Is it too much to believe that

all new homes can be good

enough everywhere? Why has

this proved so dicult in the

past and what can we do to

change it? This pamplet arguesor the use o a minimum design

standard, giving consumers

a guarantee o homes and

neighbourhoods that are

consistently well designed.

It calls or a simpler set o

housing standards and thereormulation o planning gain

as a community equity share.

Documents

Simpler and Better - Housing Design in Everyone's Interest